2005 Minnesota Monitoring Report: Highly Qualified Teachers and ESEA Title II, Part a (MS Word)

January 24, 2006

HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS AND IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY STATE GRANTS (ESEA TITLE II, PART A)

MONITORING REPORT

Minnesota Department of Education November 1– 3, 2005

U.S. Department of Education Monitoring Team: Miriam Lund Margaret Miles Adrienne von Glatz (Westat)

Minnesota Department of Education (MDE)

Jessie Montano, Director, No Child Left Behind Programs Jennifer Barker, NCLB Consolidated Programs Patricia King, Fiscal Management and Monitoring Daniel Bittman, Director, Personnel Licensing Division Richard Simms, Supervisor, Teacher Quality Allen Hoffman, Executive Director of Board of Teaching Nancy Walters, SAHE Coordinator Mary Lynne McAlonie, Director, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Deb Luedtke, Teacher Quality Enhancement Project Marilyn Baeker, Teacher Advancement Program

Overview of Minnesota: Number of districts: 465 Number of teachers: 51,611

Allocations: State Allocation (FY 20041) $37.901.563/00 State Allocation (FY 2005) $37,960,871.00 LEA Allocation (FY 2004) $35,646,420.00 LEA Allocation (FY 2005) $35,702,199.00 “State Activities” (FY 2004) $938,064.00 “State Activities” (FY 2005) $939,532.00 SAHE Allocation (FY 2004) $938,064.00 SAHE Allocation (FY 2005) $939,532.00 SEA Administration (FY 2004) $330,931.00 SEA Administration (FY 2005) $331,524.00 SAHE Administration (FY 2004) $48,084.00 SAHE Administration (FY 2005) $48,084.00

Scope of Review:

Like all other State educational agencies (SEAs), the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), as a condition of receiving funds under Title I, Part A and Title II, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), provided an assurance to the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) that it

1 FY 2004 funds are those that became available to the State on July 1, 2004.

1 would administer these programs in accordance with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including those in Title I, Part A that concern “Highly Qualified Teachers” and those that govern the use of Title II, Part A funds. See §9304(a)(1) of the ESEA. One of the specific requirements the Department established for an SEA’s receipt of program funds under its consolidated state application (§9302(b)) was submission to the Department of annual data on how well the State has been meeting its performance target for Performance Indicator 3.1: “The percentage of classes being taught by ‘highly qualified’ teachers (as the term is defined in §9101(23) of the ESEA), in the aggregate and in ‘high-poverty’ schools (as the term is defined in §1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA).”

The Department’s monitoring visit to Minnesota had two purposes. One was to review the progress of the State in meeting the ESEA’s highly qualified teacher (HQT) requirements. The second was to review the use of ESEA Title II, Part A funds by the SEA, selected LEAs and the State agency for higher education (SAHE), to ensure that the funds are being used to prepare, retain and recruit high-quality teachers and principals so that all children will achieve to a high academic achievement standard and to their full potential.

The monitoring review was conducted November 1-3, 2005, at the offices of the MDE. The monitoring team visited the St. Paul and Robinsdale School Districts and conducted a conference call with representatives of the Moorhead School District.

2 Summary of Monitoring Indicators

Monitoring Area 1: Highly Qualified Teacher Systems and Procedures Element Description Status Page Number Critical Element Has the State developed and implemented Findings 7 1.1 procedures, consistent with the statutory definition of highly qualified, to determine whether all teachers of core academic subjects are highly qualified (§9101(23))? Critical Element Are all new elementary school teachers Finding 8 1.2 (including special education teachers, as appropriate) required to pass a rigorous State test in reading, writing, mathematics, and the other areas of the elementary school curriculum to demonstrate subject-matter competency (§9101(23)(B)(II))? Critical Element Are all new middle and secondary school Findings 8 1.3 teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) required to demonstrate subject- matter competency, in each core academic subject they teach (§9101(23)(B)(II)(ii))? Critical Element Are all veteran (i.e., those who are not new to Finding 9 1.4 the profession) elementary school teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) required to demonstrate subject- matter competency by passing a rigorous State test or by completing the State’s “High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation” (HOUSSE) procedures (§9101(23) (C))? Critical Element Are all veteran middle and secondary teachers Finding 10 1.5 (including special education teachers, as appropriate) required to demonstrate subject- matter competency in each core academic subject they teach? Critical Element For each set of HOUSSE procedures the State Met Requirements NA 1.6 has developed, please describe how it meets each of the statutory requirements of §9101(23) (C)(ii). Critical Element How does the SEA ensure that, since the Finding 10 1.7 beginning of the 2002-03 school year, districts hire only highly qualified teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) to

3 teach in Title I programs? Critical Element How has the SEA ensured, since the beginning Met Requirements NA 1.8 of the 2002-03 school year, that districts that use ESEA Title II funds to reduce class size hire only highly qualified teachers for such positions? Critical Element Does the SEA’s plan establish annual Met Requirements NA 1.9 measurable objectives for each LEA and school to ensure that annual increases occur:  in the percentage of highly qualified teachers at each LEA and school; and  in the percentage of teachers who are receiving high-quality professional development to enable them to become highly qualified and successful classroom teachers (§1119(a)(2)(A))? Critical Element Does the SEA also have a plan with specific Met Requirements NA 1.10 steps to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, and/or out-of- field teachers? Does the plan include measures to evaluate and publicly report the progress of such steps (§1111(b)(8)(C))? Critical Element Has the State reported to the Secretary in its Finding 11 1.11 Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) the number and percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and in high-poverty schools, consistent with the statutory definition of highly qualified (§1111(h)(4)(G); §9101(23))? Critical Element Does the State prepare and disseminate to the Met Requirements NA 1.12 public an Annual State Report Card (§1111(h) (1)(C)(viii))? If so, how is it disseminated?

Monitoring Area 2: Administration of ESEA Title II, Part A Element Description Status Page Number Critical Does the SEA allocate funds according to the Met Requirements NA Element 2.1 statute, using the most recent Census Bureau data as described in the Non-Regulatory Guidance (§2121(a))? Critical Does the SEA require an application from Commendation 11 Element 2.2 each LEA before providing Title II, Part A funding? If yes, what information does the

4 SEA require in the LEA application (§2122(b))? Critical In particular, does the SEA require each LEA Met Requirements NA Element 2.3 to describe how the activities to be carried out are based on the required local needs assessment (§2122(b))? Critical Does the SEA have a procedure to determine Met Requirements NA Element 2.4 the amount of funds each LEA expended during the period of availability? Critical Does the SEA have a procedure to regularly Commendation 11 Element 2.5 review the drawdowns of the LEAs? Critical Does the SEA have a written policy on Met Requirements NA Element 2.6 allowable carryover funds? Critical If an LEA cannot obligate funds within the 27 Met Requirements NA Element 2.7 months of availability (which includes the extra year of availability permitted under the Tydings amendment), does the SEA have a procedure for reallocating these funds to other LEAs? Critical Does the SEA have records to show that each Met Requirements NA Element 2.8 LEA meets the maintenance of effort requirements? Critical Does the SEA conduct regular, systematic Recommendation 11 Element 2.9 reviews of LEAs to monitor for compliance with Federal statutes and regulations, applicable State rules and policies, and the approved subgrant application? Critical Does the SEA ensure that it and its Met Requirements NA Element 2.10 component LEAs are audited annually, if required, and that all corrective actions required through this process are fully implemented? Critical Has the SEA identified and provided Met Requirements NA Element 2.11 technical assistance to LEAs that are not making progress toward meeting their annual measurable objectives in meeting the highly qualified teacher challenge (§2141)? Critical Has the SEA provided guidance to the LEAs Met Requirements NA Element 2.12 on initiating consultation with nonpublic school officials for equitable services?

Monitoring Area 3: State Activities Element Description Status Page

5 Number Critical Does the State use its State Activities funds to Met Requirements NA Element 3.1 promote the recruitment, hiring, training, and retention of highly qualified teachers and principals? Critical Does the State support activities that focus on Met Requirements NA Element 3.2 increasing the subject-matter knowledge of teachers and that assist teachers to become highly qualified?

Monitoring Area 4: State Agency for Higher Education (SAHE) Activities Element Description Status Page Number Critical Did the SAHE manage a competition for eligible Findings 12 Element 4.1 partnerships? Recommendation Critical Does the SAHE have procedures to ensure that Recommendations 12 Element 4.2 eligible partnerships include the required members, i.e., an institution of higher education and the division of the institution that prepares teachers and principals, a school of arts and sciences, and a high-need LEA?

Area 1: Highly Qualified Teacher Systems and Procedures

Critical Element 1.1: Has the State developed and implemented procedures, consistent with the statutory definition of highly qualified, to determine whether all teachers of core academic subjects are highly qualified (§9101(23))?

Finding 1: Elementary special education teachers in Minnesota who are new to the profession can demonstrate subject-matter competency in core areas of the elementary school curriculum through the State’s High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) procedures instead of passing a rigorous State content test. Similarly, the State allows middle and secondary school special education teachers who are new to the profession to demonstrate subject-matter competency through HOUSSE. Under the statute, using HOUSSE procedures to demonstrate subject-matter competency is not an option available to teachers who are new to the profession.

Citation: The ESEA provisions governing teacher quality include basic requirements (§1119(a) and (b)) that all teachers of core academic subjects who teach in Title I programs and who were hired after the first day of the 2002-03 school year first demonstrate that they are highly qualified and that all other teachers of core academic subjects in all public schools be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year. Section 9101(23) of the ESEA expressly defines a “highly

6 qualified” teacher as one who has at least a bachelor’s degree, has full State certification, and has demonstrated competency in each subject he or she teaches in certain statutorily prescribed ways.

The ESEA HQT provisions also include important requirements in §1111(h) of the ESEA regarding public reporting to the people of Minnesota and to the U.S. Secretary of Education (the Secretary) on the extent to which teachers of core academic subjects in the State’s school districts are highly qualified. Together, these several ESEA requirements are a critical part of the framework Congress established in NCLB for how States accepting Title I, Part A funds would be held accountable for providing to all students – and particularly those in Title I programs – teachers with the knowledge they need to help those students not only to meet or exceed their States’ academic achievement standards, but to achieve to their full academic potential.

Further Action Required: The MDE must submit a written plan with specific procedures and a timeline for ensuring that all elementary and secondary special education teachers who are new to the profession and who provide instruction in core academic subjects are highly qualified no later than the end of the 2005-06 school year, in accordance with §9101(23)(B)(i)(II) of the ESEA, which requires new elementary school teachers to pass a rigorous State test of subject knowledge and teaching skills. The MDE should also include specific procedures and a timeline for ensuring that all middle and secondary special education teachers who are new to the profession and who provide instruction in core academic subjects are highly qualified in accordance with §9101(23)(B)(ii) of the ESEA, which requires new middle and secondary teachers to pass a rigorous State academic subject test or complete an undergraduate academic major, graduate degree or coursework equivalent to an undergraduate academic major.

Finding 2: The MDE considers all elementary school teachers licensed prior to 2001 to be highly qualified, although they have not demonstrated subject-matter competency through either the HOUSSE or by passing a subject-matter test. Starting in 2001, revised State education program graduation requirements required elementary school teachers to have a dual major in elementary education and an additional core content specialty and demonstrate subject-matter competency through a State-approved assessment.

7 Citation: Section 9101(23)(C) of the ESEA requires elementary school teachers not new to the profession to demonstrate subject-matter competency either by passing a content test or by satisfying the State’s HOUSSE requirements.

Further Action Required: The State must submit a written plan with specific procedures and a timeline for ensuring that all elementary teachers licensed prior to 2001 have demonstrated subject-matter competency by passing a subject-matter competency test or through HOUSSE procedures.

Critical Element 1.2: Are all new elementary school teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) required to pass a rigorous State test in reading, writing, mathematics, and the other areas of the elementary school curriculum to demonstrate subject-matter competency (§9101(23)(B)(II))?

Finding: Elementary school special education teachers who are new to the profession are allowed to demonstrate subject-matter competency in core subjects of the elementary school curriculum through HOUSSE instead of passing a rigorous State content test.

Citation: Section 9101(23)(B)(i)(II) of the ESEA permits elementary school teachers who are new to the profession to demonstrate subject-matter competency needed to be highly qualified only by passing a rigorous State test of subject knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, mathematics and other areas of the basic elementary curriculum.

Further Action Required: The MDE must submit a written plan with specific procedures and a timeline for ensuring that all special education teachers who are new to the profession and who provide instruction in the elementary school core academic subjects are highly qualified no later than the end of the 2005-06 school year, in accordance with §9101(23)(B)(i)(II) of the ESEA.

Critical Element 1.3: Are all new middle and secondary school teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) required to demonstrate subject-matter competency in each core academic subject they teach (§9101(23)(B)(II)(ii))?

Finding 1: The MDE allows middle and secondary school special education teachers who are new to the profession to demonstrate subject-matter competency in core academic subjects through HOUSSE instead of by passing a rigorous State content test, having a subject-area major or coursework equivalent to a major, or holding an advanced degree or certification.

Citation: Section 9101(23)(B)(ii) of the ESEA permits middle and secondary school teachers who are new to the profession to demonstrate subject-matter competency needed to be highly qualified only by passing a rigorous State academic subject test or by completing an undergraduate academic major, graduate degree or coursework equivalent to an undergraduate academic major.

Further Action Required: The MDE must submit a written plan with specific procedures and a timeline for ensuring that all middle and secondary school special education teachers who are new to the profession and who provide instruction in core academic subjects are highly qualified

8 no later than the end of the 2005-06 school year, in accordance with §9101(23)(B)(ii) of the ESEA.

Finding 2: The broad-field assessment used for the demonstration of social studies content knowledge for new teachers may not provide adequate subject-matter preparation for each of the core academic subjects explicitly noted in the statute. In addition, the coursework required for the composite social studies endorsement may not provide adequate subject-matter preparation for each of the core academic subjects explicitly noted in the statute.

Citation: Section 9101(11) of the ESEA identifies history, geography, civics/government and economics as individual core academic subjects. Section 9101(23)(B)(ii) of the ESEA requires new teachers of core academic subjects to demonstrate subject-matter competency in each core academic subject they teach.

Further Action Required: The MDE must ensure that all history, geography, civics/government and economics teachers demonstrate subject-matter competency in each of these subjects that they teach no later than the end of the 2005-06 school year. (In doing so, if the MDE has determined that the broad-field assessment adequately represents all four content areas or that the coursework requirement for an academic major in social studies provides coursework “equivalent to a major” in each or in a subset of these specific core academic subjects, it will need to explain specifically the basis for its determination.)

Critical Element 1.4: Are all veteran elementary school teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) required to demonstrate subject-matter competency by passing a rigorous State test or by completing the State’s “High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation” (HOUSSE) procedures (§9101(23)(C))?

Finding: MDE considers all elementary school teachers licensed prior to 2001 to be a highly qualified, although they may not have demonstrated subject-matter competency either through HOUSSE or by passing a subject-matter competency test. Starting in 2001, revised State education graduation requirements required elementary school teachers to have a dual major in elementary education and an additional core content specialty, then demonstrate subject-matter competency through a State-approved assessment.

Citation: Section 9101(23)(C) of the ESEA requires elementary school teachers who are not new to the profession to demonstrate subject-matter competency by passing a content test or by satisfying the State’s HOUSSE requirements.

Recommendation: The State considers licensed elementary teachers to be highly qualified under NCLB. The State should analyze whether the criteria for satisfying the requirements for an elementary license align with the statutory requirements for a HOUSSE procedure.

9 Critical Element 1.5: Are all veteran middle and secondary teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) required to demonstrate subject-matter competency in each core academic subject they teach, in one or more of the following ways?

Finding: The broad-field assessment used for the demonstration of social studies content knowledge for new and veteran teachers may not provide adequate subject-matter preparation for each of the core academic subjects explicitly noted in the statute. In addition, the coursework required for the composite social studies endorsement may not provide adequate subject-matter preparation for each of the core academic subjects explicitly noted in the statute.

Critical Element 1.7: How does the SEA ensure that, since the beginning of the 2002-03 school year, districts only hire highly qualified teachers (including special education teachers, as appropriate) to teach in Title I programs?

Finding: Though the State has procedures in place to ensure that only highly qualified teachers are hired to teach in Title I programs, due to the definitional issues described in Critical Element 1.1 related to new special education teachers and to veteran elementary school teachers, the State is not able to ensure that only highly qualified teachers are hired to teach in Title I programs.

Citation: Section 1119(a)(1) of the ESEA requires that all teachers hired after the first day of the 2002-03 school year to teach in Title I programs must be highly qualified.

Further Action Required: The MDE must submit a written plan to ensure that special education teachers who are new to the profession and elementary school teachers hired before 2001 demonstrate subject-matter competence in accordance with the statutory requirements of §9101(23)(B) of the ESEA. For further information see Critical Elements 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3.

Critical Element 1.11: Has the State reported to the Secretary in its Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) the number and percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and in high-poverty schools, consistent with the statutory definition of highly qualified (§1111(h)(4)(G); §9101(23))?

Finding: Though the State reported HQT data in the CSPR, the data were not prepared in accordance with the HQT definitions (see Critical Elements 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4).

10 Citation: Section 1111(h)(4)(G) of the ESEA requires each SEA annually to report to the U.S. Secretary of Education on the percentage of classes (in core academic subjects) taught by highly qualified teachers in the State, local educational agency and school2 (a summary of which §1111(h)(5) requires the Secretary annually to report to Congress).

Further Action Required: The MDE must submit a written plan with specific procedures and a timeline for reporting to the Secretary through the CSPR in a manner consistent with the statutory requirements, as required by §1111(h). Once data prepared in accordance with the HQT definitions are reported to the Secretary through the CSPR, the State should use those same definitions and procedures in reporting on the data required in the Annual State Report Card.

Area 2: Administration of ESEA Title II, Part A

Critical Element 2.2: Does the SEA require an application from each LEA before providing Title II, Part A funding? If yes, what information does the SEA require in the LEA application (§2122(b))?

Commendation: The State is commended on its LEA application. The application is consolidated, submitted electronically and requires a needs assessment. For those LEAs that plan on using funds for class-size reduction, the application contains a chart that very clearly displays the ways that the funds will be used.

Critical Element 2.5: Does the SEA have a procedure to regularly review the drawdowns of the LEAs?

Commendation: The State is commended on its two data systems (STARS and EDRS) that are used to cross-check data on classes taught by highly qualified teachers and provide regular information on drawdowns of LEAs.

Critical Element 2.9: Does the SEA conduct regular, systematic reviews of LEAs to monitor for compliance with Federal statutes and regulations, applicable State rules and policies, and the approved subgrant application?

Recommendation: The State should move forward with the implementation of its proposed LEA monitoring plan.

Area 4: State Agency for Higher Education (SAHE) Activities

Critical Element 4.1: Did the SAHE manage a competition for eligible partnerships?

Finding 1: The SAHE solicited and funded proposals to provide professional development opportunities to paraprofessionals. However, a partnership that receives a SAHE subgrant under §2132 cannot use Title II funds to serve paraprofessionals who are not already highly qualified.

2 The Department currently is requiring States to report data on classes taught by highly qualified teachers at the State level only. However we reserve the right to require this information in future annual State reports to the Secretary.

11 Citation: Section 2134(a)(1)(A) of the ESEA allows that an eligible partnership may use the subgrant funds for professional development activities in core academic subjects to serve paraprofessionals only if they are highly qualified.

Further Action Required: The SAHE must provide documentation that all paraprofessionals receiving services in funded partnerships meet the definition of highly qualified paraprofessionals under NCLB.

Finding 2: The SAHE’s RFP does not clearly describe the 50 percent “special rule.”

Citation: Section 2132(c) of the ESEA requires that “No single participant in an eligible partnership may use more than 50 percent of the funds made available to the partnership under this section.”

Further Action Required: In the next competition for eligible partnerships, the SAHE must ensure that the 50 percent “special rule” is clearly described in the RFP. The SAHE must ensure that no participant uses more than 50 percent of the funds. The provision focuses not on which partner receives the funds, but on which partner directly benefits from them.

Recommendation: The SAHE Coordinator should attend the Department-sponsored Title II Coordinators meetings to keep abreast of program guidance and developments.

Critical Element 4.2: Does the SAHE have procedures to ensure that eligible partnerships include the required members, i.e., an institution of higher education and the division of the institution that prepares teachers and principals, a school of arts and sciences, and a high-need LEA?

Recommendation 1 : The SAHE should move forward with the implementation of its proposed subgrantee monitoring plan.

Recommendation 2: The SAHE may find it useful to carefully document, by region, participants in its funded projects to ensure geographic distribution of grant funds across the State.